Summitwind farm grant and roberts counties, south dakota

Wildlife

1. Existing Wildlife Conditions

1. Existing Wildlife Species

Based on the existing land cover, species associated with grasslands, shrublands, and croplands would likely be the most common species within the Project area and the surrounding region. In general, native land cover types that cover most of the Project area, including wetlands and grasslands, are not unique in the region. However, there are potential concerns regarding loss of native habitat. Because the land cover is not unique to the region, it is not likely to attract or concentrate bird or bat species compared to surrounding areas. However, several large wetland areas are located to the east and north of the Project area and several Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Areas occur within or adjacent to the Project area. These areas are known habitats for local wildlife species.

According to WEST, seven species of bats are likely residents or migrants of the Project area, including the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) (WEST, 2014a). Bat acoustic monitoring took place for 238 detector nights, during which time 1,567 bat passes were recorded. Bat activity was higher at the three temporary monitoring stations within bat habitat (e.g., treed areas) which recorded 97% of all bat passes, compared with activity levels at the fixed stations. Overall, 52.6% of bat passes were classified as low-frequency (LF) (big brown bats, hoary bats, and silver-haired bats), and 47.4% of bat passes were classified as high-frequency (HF) (eastern red bats and Myotis species) (WEST, 2015).

WEST conducted fixed-point bird use surveys approximately once per week in the spring (March 1 to May 15) and fall (September 1 to November 15) and twice monthly during winter (November 16 to February 29 and summer (May 16 to August 31). Surveys were completed within the Project area from September 5, 2013 to August 28, 2014. The surveys included seven point locations throughout the Project area. Bird diversity was illustrated by the total number of unique species observed. A total of 231 fixed-point bird use surveys were conducted during 34 visits to the Project area. Fifty-five unique bird species totaling 1,833 observations in 397 groups were recorded. WEST recorded 33 individual diurnal raptor observations within the Project area, representing five species. The most commonly recorded raptor species were red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) (thirteen observations) and northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) (thirteen observations). Overall mean diurnal raptor use observed during this study was 0.12 raptors/800-m plot/20-min survey. Compared to other publicly available project data from the central and western US with similar study seasons, mean raptor use at Project area is near the lower end of the range of values. Of 49 projects with raptor use, Project area ranked 46^th (WEST, 2014c).

WEST did not observe any bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) during the point counts; however, WEST observed an active bald eagle nest east of the north central Project boundary. A survey point was established to monitor the known bald eagle nest (labeled HN-2 by the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department). The nest is located approximately 770 meters (842 yards) east of the proposed SummitWind Farm boundary. During observations of the known eagle nest the adult eagles were observed primarily perched in trees around the nest or sitting on the nest. Eagles were only observed in flight five times during the survey effort, with all flight paths north or east of the nest location (WEST, 2014f). The Project proponent is consulting with the USFWS and South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP). Additionally, the proponent is currently preparing a voluntary Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) following the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS WEG) (USFWS, 2012a) to address avian species, including bald eagles, as further described in Section 2.5.3, below.

Two bird species known to be of interest to wind energy development in the central and north-central United States are whooping cranes (Grus americana) and sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus). The migratory path of the whooping crane is outside of the project area and therefore it is highly unlikely that the project would have an adverse effect on the species. WEST did not observe any whooping cranes or sharp-tailed grouse leks (mating displays) during the surveys, although it did see individual sharp-tailed grouse (WEST, 2014). The sharp-tailed grouse is not state or federally listed but is a species of interest and monitored by the SDGFP.

No federal or state threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed bird species were recorded during breeding bird surveys. Three bird species designated as South Dakota Species of Greatest Conservation Need were observed during surveys. The most commonly observed sensitive species observed at any time or distance during the transect surveys was the American white pelican (25 individual observations), followed by the chestnut-collared longspur (12 individual observations), and marbled godwit (four individual observations) (WEST, 2014e).

2. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species

Seven species listed by the USFWS as federally endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species to be listed as endangered or threatened, are known to or have the potential to occur in Grant County. These species are: the endangered Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka), gray wolf (Canis lupus), and Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek); and the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae), rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), and northern long-eared bat.

The Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling may occur in tracts of native grassland habitat that surround the Project area. The northern long-eared bat may occur within or migrate through the Project area. However, there is limited roosting and foraging habitat potential in the Project area, it is unlikely that the northern long-eared bat is a summer resident, and it is unlikely that the bat would hibernate in or around the Project site due to the lack of caves and mines (WEST, 2014a).

In its technical services letter dated July 25, 2013 and its updated letter on January 14, 2015, the USFWS noted the potential for Dakota skipper, Poweshiek skipperling, and rufa red knot occurrence in the actual Project area. The USFWS also acknowledged Western’s request for voluntary conferencing for the northern long-eared bat prior to the listing of the species.

South Dakota has an extensive list of state-listed endangered, threatened, and Species of Greatest Conservation Need, as designated by the SDGFP. WEST conducted a preliminary review of the birds and mammals (birds and bats are most likely impacted by wind facility development) from the State’s list and found five bird species (Osprey, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Whooping Crane, and Piping Plover) and one mammal species (the state threatened northern river otter), with the potential to occur in or near the Project area (WEST, 2014).

Topeka Shiner

The Topeka shiner is a federally-listed endangered species that is a small minnow native to the streams of the prairie. This small fish (up to about three inches in length) prefers small, quiet streams with clean gravel or sand substrates and vegetated banks. Declines in Topeka shiner abundance could be related to habitat degradation, sedimentation, impoundments of tributaries, and water quality declines. Although the shiner is not known to occur in the Project area, the predicted distribution does include the Project area and its immediate vicinity. Therefore, precautions should be exercised when working near waters in the Project area. As most wind projects are built on the higher ground, direct impacts from the turbines would not be expected. However, roads and power lines between turbines may cross these drainages. If impacts cannot be avoided to the streams, additional survey efforts and consultations with appropriate agencies may be needed. The BA determined that with the implementation of the BMPs, avoidance and minimization measures listed in the BA the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Topeka Shiner.

The northern river otter (Lontra canadensis) is a state-listed threatened mammal. Riparian vegetation along a wetland margin is a key habitat feature. Such vegetation may attract beavers (Castor canadensis), which enhance areas for river otters by creating foraging habitat and denning areas. Beaver bank dens, either active or abandoned, are important sites for temporary otter denning or resting. River otters often use fallen trees or logjams for shelter or foraging. River otter sightings have been recorded in Grant county. The northern river otter has the potential to occur within the Project area, as river habitat is available, but impacts from the development of the Project are unlikely because the Project proponent does not expect any stream area impacts (WEST, 2014a).

The Poweshiek skipperling is a small moth-like butterfly dependent on high quality tallgrass prairie and riparian areas with sedges. The Poweshiek skipperling population is declining in part due to habitat loss and degradation, so the butterfly was federally listed as endangered under the ESA in October 2014 (USFWS 2014). It has been found in recent years in North and South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In South Dakota, the butterfly has been found throughout the northeastern counties, including Grant county; the South Dakota populations appear to be declining as well. Proposed critical habitat is present on USFWS fee-title land 5 miles outside the Project area.

No Poweshiek skipperlings were observed during the 2014 surveys on the Project site. Butterfly numbers were generally low for all butterfly species on Project lands where surveys took place (HDR 2014). The BA determined that with the implementation of the BMPs, avoidance and minimization measures listed in the BA, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Poweshiek skipperling.

Dakota Skipper

The Dakota skipper butterfly is federally listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS 2014). This small butterfly (1-1.5 inch [2.5-3.8 cm] wingspan) is found in the northeastern counties of South Dakota. The Dakota skipper is found in native tallgrass and alkaline prairie, particularly in rolling pastures near wetlands. Conservation efforts include protection of remaining tracts of undisturbed native prairie. Because the Project contains native grasslands, there is the possibility for this species to occur in the Project area, and populations are known to occur east of the Project area, including in Grant County (WEST, 2014a), (WAPA, 2013). Proposed critical habitat is present on USFWS fee-title land 3.7 miles outside the Project area. No Dakota Skippers were found during the 2014 Butterfly Survey within the Project area (HDR 2014). The BA determined that with the implementation of the BMPs and avoidance and minimization measures listed in the BA, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Dakota skipper.

The northern long-eared bat was recently federally listed as a threatened species (USFWS 2015a). The northern long-eared bat probably does not occur within the SWRA because there is limited roosting (i.e., trees and buildings) and foraging habitat potential although they may migrate through the area. It is unlikely that they hibernate in or around the site due to the lack of caves and mines. WEST performed a Northern Long-Eared Bat Acoustic Survey for the species within a sample of potential northern long-eared bat habitat found in the SummitWind Project area. Data analysis with both Kaleidoscope Pro and Sonobat indicated that northern long-eared bat presence is considered unlikely at the site (WEST, 2015a). The BA determined that with the implementation of the BMPs and avoidance and minimization measures listed in the BA, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Northern Long-Eared Bat.

The rufa red knot was recently federally listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS, 2015). This medium-sized shorebird (9 to 11 inches long) is a long-distant migrant which breeds in the Canadian Arctic and winters as far south as coastal Argentina. Red knots occur mainly along ocean coasts during migration but have been documented in most US states. During spring migration, important stopover habitat includes the South American Atlantic coast, the Virginia barrier islands, and Delaware Bay. Non-breeding red knots remain south of the breeding grounds and may be observed in small numbers in the Northern Plains (and possibly in South Dakota). The BA determined that with the implementation of the BMPs and avoidance and minimization measures listed in the BA, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the rufa red knot.

The gray wolf was reinstated as a federally listed endangered species in February 2015 (USFWS 2015b). The closest wolf pack to South Dakota is in northwestern Minnesota (Licht and Fritts 1994); however, some wolves from the Rocky Mountain population may also roam into portions of South Dakota. Although gray wolves could be spotted anywhere in South Dakota, the likely areas would be the more remote and roadless areas of the state. There are no known sightings of the species within or near the Project Area. The BA determined that with the implementation of the BMPs and avoidance and minimization measures listed in the BA, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the gray wolf.

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

In general, most wildlife species known or suspected to be present within the Project area do not use disturbed agricultural land within the area as their primary habitat. As a result, there would be minimal impact to most species. Impacts to avian species include collisions with wind turbines, transmission lines, and guyed met towers. The Project proponent would limit the risk of collisions from the Project by using modern turbine and associated facility designs (e.g., tubular rather than lattice towers, buried electrical interconnect, and unguyed meteorological towers), developing a BBCS and by implementing applicable guidelines provided by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee.

As discussed above, listed wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the Project area utilize a variety of habitats, including wetlands, water bodies, and grasslands. The Project proponent has sited project components to avoid wetlands, streams, and grasslands to the extent practicable. The agricultural lands being affected are generally not high quality grassland habitat; therefore, the habitat being impacted by Project construction is unlikely to receive significant use by listed threatened and endangered species. However, to the extent that these species occur in the area, Project construction may result in limited disturbance or displacement of these species due to human activity and noise, or direct mortality impacts, especially during the short term construction period.

Habitat alteration and disturbance resulting from the operation of turbines and other wind farm infrastructure can make a site unsuitable or less suitable for nesting, foraging, resting, or other wildlife use. Overall, the footprint of turbine pads, roads, and other Project infrastructure represents a very small percentage of the site following construction and restoration of the Project site. Therefore, overall land use is relatively unchanged by wind power development. However, the true amount of wildlife habitat altered by a wind power project can extend beyond the functional project footprint, due to the presence of tall structures and increased human activity.

The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on wildlife. However, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater impacts to wildlife.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

The Project proponent would implement a variety of BMPs (final UGP Wind Energy PEIS Section 5.6.2) and avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential ecological impacts during project construction, operation, and decommissioning. Many of the BMPs and conservation measures for soils (Section 2.1.3), air quality (section 2.2.3), water resources (Section 2.3.3), and vegetation (Section 2.4.3) would also reduce potential ecological impacts. In addition to BMPs and mitigation measures identified for other resource areas such as soils, water, air quality, and noise, the following measures would be applicable:

• 
  Reduce habitat disturbance by keeping vehicles on access roads and minimizing foot and vehicle traffic through undisturbed areas.
  
• 
  Instruct employees, contractors, and site visitors to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during reproductive (i.e., courtship and nesting) seasons. Pets would not be allowed in the Project area.
  
• 
  Initiate habitat restoration of disturbed soils and vegetation as soon as possible after construction activities are completed. Restore areas of disturbed soil using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
  
• 
  Develop a plan for control of noxious weeds and invasive plants that could occur as a result of new surface disturbance activities at the site. The plan would address monitoring, weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods for treating infestations.
  
• 
  Promptly dispose of all garbage or human waste generated on site in order to avoid attracting nuisance wildlife.
  

The Project proponent has designed the Project to minimize bird and bat collision mortality to the greatest extent practicable and has followed the siting recommendations provided in the USFWS WEG (USFWS, 2012a). The turbines in modern projects are placed much farther apart than in older wind farms where higher numbers of avian mortality have been documented. The Project turbines would also be mounted on tubular towers (rather than lattice), which prevent perching by birds. In an effort to further reduce avian and bat impacts, electrical collection lines between the turbines would generally be buried. The Project proponent would minimize lighting of the turbines and other infrastructure to the extent allowed by the FAA, and would follow specific design guidelines to reduce collision risk (e.g., using blinking lights with the longest permissible off cycle). To minimize or completely avoid impacts to the active bald eagle nest observed approximately one mile east of the north central Project boundary, the Project proponent has changed the Project layout by moving 4 turbines away from the nest and off of native grassland.

The Project proponent is consulting with the USFWS regarding the appropriate bird and bat conservation strategies for this Project, including the potential for additional pre-construction avian or bat surveys and post-construction monitoring and reporting to the agencies.

To avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources resulting from construction-related siltation and sedimentation, the Project proponent would implement an approved sediment and erosion control plan and prepare a SWPPP (as described in Section 2.4). The Applicant would also seek coverage under NPDES for General Construction Stormwater Discharges. In addition, the Project proponent would develop and implement a SPCC Plan to minimize the potential for unintended releases of petroleum and other hazardous chemicals during Project construction and operation (also as described in Section 2.4).

6. Land Use

1. Existing Conditions

The Project turbines would be located completely within Grant County, which has a population density of 12 people per square mile. The Project Proponent would not site the Project within any city limit and would site all turbines a minimum of 1,400 feet from occupied residences.

The Project area is predominantly rural land owned by private individuals. The majority of the land in the Project area is agricultural, with most of that land being utilized for the cultivation of corn and soybeans or pastureland.

Figure 2.6.1-1: Grant County Land Cover 2010

(NASS 2008)

Grant County has enacted a wind turbine siting ordinance, which requires:

• 
  Distance from existing off-site residences, businesses, churches, and buildings owned and maintained by a governmental entity shall be at least 1,000 feet. Distance from on-site or lessor’s residence shall be at least 500 feet.
  
• 
  Distance from centerline of public roads shall be at least 500 feet or 110 percent of the height of the wind turbines, whichever distance is greater, measured from the ground surface to the tip of the blade when in a fully vertical position.
  
• 
  Distance from any property line shall be at least 500 feet or 110 percent of the height of the wind turbine, whichever distance is greater, measured from the ground surface to the tip of the blade when in a fully vertical position unless wind easement has been obtained from adjoining property owner.
  
• 
  Exception: The Board of Adjustment may allow setback distances to be less than the established distances identified above if the adjoining landowners agree to a lesser setback distance. If approved, such agreement is to be recorded and filed with the Register of Deeds.
  

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

During operation, the Project would have little impact on agricultural uses. The Project would permanently impact only 20.09 acres of agricultural land, all of which is under lease contract with farmers who have negotiated acceptable terms. The Project proponent designed the Project to allow for the continued productive agricultural use of the surrounding land. In fact, it has been postulated that the development of wind farms helps to keep land in agricultural use because once a wind farm becomes operational, the most compatible land use for the surrounding landscape would remain agricultural until the wind farm is decommissioned (DOE 2011).

Recreational vehicle (RV) campsites and motels may experience increased use by construction workers seeking temporary accommodations during Project construction, particularly on weekdays, which could displace recreational users. The Project proponent does not anticipate any impacts to RV campsite and motel usage during operation.

Anecdotally, some host communities report an increase in tourism after wind farms are built. In addition to curious individual local tourists, it is not unusual for other communities considering wind development to organize bus trips for landowners to visit operational wind farms (http://caladventures.com/listings/windfarmtoursnone/). According to a report prepared for the Welsh government, a number of studies point to the potential of the wind farms in their own right to attract visitors. These studies are often based on visitors’ stated intentions in surveys rather than any observed positive impacts, however. There is little evidence that these positive effects occur in practice, as was borne out by case studies where there are established wind farms (Regeneris, 2014). The Regeneris study concludes that a majority of people do not react negatively to wind farm developments or change visiting behavior as a result and generally that wind farms do not negatively affect tourism.

The Project proponent does not anticipate any impacts to hunting within the Project area during the construction or operation of the Project. During operations, the small amount of land that is set aside for Project facilities is on private property and would not have any significant effect on the amount of land available for hunting in the vicinity. Further, construction and operations staff would always employ appropriate personal protective equipment while on the Project site, which would make them highly visible and keep them safe during hunting season.

Because there are no recorded snowmobile trails in the Project area, the Project proponent does not anticipate any impacts to snowmobiling.

The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on agricultural or recreational land uses. The potential positive impacts on long term tourism in the Project area would not occur if the No Action Alternative were selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater impacts to land use.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

The Project proponent would coordinate construction activities with landowners to minimize interference with farming or livestock operations. Issues that would need to be addressed could include installation of gates and cattle guards where access roads cross existing fence lines, access control, signing of open range areas, traffic management (e.g., vehicle speed management), and location of livestock water sources.

Additionally, the final PEIS indicates the following conservation measures for agricultural lands:

• 
  Construction debris should be removed from the site.
  
• 
  Excess concrete (excluding belowground portions of decommissioned turbine foundations intentionally left in place) should not be buried or left in active agricultural areas.
  
• 
  Vehicles should be washed outside of active agricultural areas to minimize the possibility of the spread of noxious weeds.
  
• 
  Topsoil should be stripped from any agricultural area used for traffic or vehicle parking—segregating topsoil from excavated rock and subsoil—and replaced during restoration activities.
  
• 
  Drainage problems caused by construction should be corrected to prevent damage to agricultural fields.
  
• 
  Following completion of construction and during decommissioning, subsoil should be decompacted.
  

7. Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice

1. Existing Conditions

1. Socioeconomics

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey, the majority of Grant County’s workforce was associated with: educational services and health care, retail trade, and agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining. (U.S. Census Bureau FactFinder).

The January 2014 unemployment rate for Grant County was 6.3 percent.

Table 2.7.1-1: Unemployment rates for 2011 and 2012

From 2008-2012 the median household income was $46,273 in Grant County.

Table 2.7.1-2: Personal Income

	Grant County	South Dakota
Median household income, 2008-2012	$46,273	$49,091

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts

Local Tax Revenue

In South Dakota, sales tax is collected at the city and town level rather than at the county level. The Town of Summit has a sales tax rate of 2 percent. In 2012 sales tax revenue was $93,128 and in 2011 it was $89,189. The majority of the Town’s sales tax revenue comes from the Coffee Cup Fuel Stop. Overall annual revenue for Grant County in 2012 was $5,741,451.24. Overall annual revenue for the Town of Summit in 2012 was $303,158 and $296,348 in 2011. Overall annual revenue for Summit School District 54-6 in 2012 was $1,612,768.92.

The Project proponent would pay an annual Production Tax of $0.00045 per kWh the wind farm produces. The Project proponent would also pay an annual tax equal to $3.00 per kW of nameplate capacity of the wind farm.

Table 2.7.1-3: Tax Valuations 2012

The 2012 population of Grant County was 7,259. Population growth between 2010 and 2012 dropped -1.3 percent in Grant County. In 2012, the population of the Town of Summit was 292. The median age in Grant County is 45.1.

Table 2.7.1-4: Population

	2010	2012	Population % change
Grant County	7,356	7,259	-1.3%
South Dakota	814,180	833,354	2.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau FactFinder

Recreation

The proposed Project area is located entirely on private land and does not encompass any land set aside for recreational purposes.

Grant County has numerous creeks and watercourses flowing throughout its regions. Hunting, camping, fishing and snowmobiling provide the greatest recreational opportunities due to the area’s rural nature and abundant water sources. County Line Campground, a privately operated RV park, with cabins and tent areas, is located just south of Summit, South Dakota. In the larger region, Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, Enemy Swim Lake, and Bitter Lake are located over 15 miles west of the Project area. Hartford Beach State Park and Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge are located over 20 miles east of the Project area. A SDGFP Game Production Area abuts the Project area to the east. There are numerous lands owned by USFWS in the area. Both the state and federal areas are open to public hunting.

Seasonal activities in Grant County include the annual Farley Fest, which has traditional country fair activities, held each summer at Lake Farley Park in Milbank, South Dakota, which is located over 15 miles from the Project area. Milbank also hosts a Train Festival annually in August. Summit, South Dakota is known for its intense fog, which residents celebrate during Fog Fest.

2. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 was signed by President Clinton in 1994 and orders federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States” (EPA 1994). The analysis of potential environmental justice issues associated with the proposed Project followed guidelines described in the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance under NEPA (CEQ 1997). The analysis method has three parts: (1) the geographic distribution of low-income and minority populations in the affected area is described; (2) an assessment of whether the impacts of construction and operation of the Project would produce impacts that are high and adverse is conducted; and (3) if impacts are high and adverse, a determination is made as to whether these impacts would disproportionately impact low-income or minority populations.

The majority of Grant County residents, 97.4 percent of the population, are Caucasian. From 2008 – 2012 the percentage of residents that lived below the poverty level was 13.8 percent in Grant County.

Table 2.7.1.2-1: Minority Populations by Percentage

Table 2.7.1.2-2: Poverty Level

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

Revenue generation from wind energy development falls into several general categories: direct income to taxing entities, direct income to Project participants, employment opportunities during construction and operation, and increased spending in the Project area during all phases of Project development, construction and operation.

The Project is anticipated to create up to 300 construction-related jobs at the peak of construction. Although a national wind energy construction contractor would likely be chosen to construct the Project, hiring of construction crews would occur in the Project region to the greatest extent possible. During construction, there would also be the opportunity for local businesses to share in the economic benefits of the Project. Transportation companies, vehicle and equipment rental companies, fuel supply companies, aggregate and materials supply companies, and heavy equipment repair and maintenance companies are among those companies that often participate directly in Project construction. Local packaging and postal services, gas stations, retail outlets, lodging facilities, restaurants, bars, and grocery stores would also experience economic benefits during construction.

The proposed Project is expected to create 5 to 10 permanent jobs during operation. In addition, the presence of a wind energy facility sometimes increases local tourism and ancillary economic benefits to local businesses that support tourism, such as gas stations, restaurants and lodging facilities.

In summary, the proposed Project, based on a per-MW estimate, would result in a total capital investment of $155 million (including the cost of turbines). The Project proponent anticipates that it would spend approximately $33 million locally during construction. In addition, The Project proponent anticipates making $500,000 per year in landowner payments and $700,000 per year in property and other taxes. Further, wind farms help landowners to maintain their agricultural property by providing an additional contribution to the taxes that keep communities rural.

The proposed Project would have at most a very limited impact on hunting, fishing, snowmobiling and camping, the most common recreational activities in the proposed Project area. This is due to the fact that the Project is located entirely on private property.

Property value concern is a common worry for residents at proposed wind farms. A 2013 study performed by the DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States,” stated:

We collected data from more than 50,000 home sales among 27 counties in nine states. These homes were within 10 miles of 67 different wind facilities, and 1,198 sales were within 1 mile of a turbine—many more than previous studies have collected. The data span the periods well before announcement of the wind facilities to well after their construction… we find no statistical evidence that home values near turbines were affected in the post-construction or post-announcement/pre-construction periods. Previous research on potentially analogous disamenities (e.g., high-voltage transmission lines, roads) suggests that the property-value effect of wind turbines is likely to be small, on average, if it is present at all (Berkeley).

If the No Action Alternative is chosen, the positive socioeconomic impacts associated with the Project may not occur because all other alternative interconnection options had been previously rejected by the Project proponent.

With regard to environmental justice, the Project’s socioeconomic benefits are positive, so any impacts to minority or disadvantaged communities would likely improve the local standard of living. There is a very small minority and economically disadvantaged population in the Project area. The Project would not disproportionately impact these populations because the Project is primarily located on agricultural land.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

8. Visual Resources

1. Existing Conditions

Visual sensitivity is dependent on viewer attitudes, the types of activities in which people are engaged when viewing the Project, and the distance from which the Project would be seen. Overall, higher degrees of visual sensitivity are correlated with areas where people live, are engaged in recreational outdoor pursuits, or participate in scenic or pleasure driving. Lesser degrees of viewer sensitivity are anticipated for people living further away, participating landowners, workers who construct or maintain the Project, or people who are just traveling through the area.

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

The visual characteristics of the proposed Project area consist primarily of rural agricultural land with farming, livestock grazing, and related agricultural operations dominating the land use. The visual resources of the area are neither unique to the region nor entirely natural. Currently, no distinctive landscape features exist in the Project area that would require specific protection from visual impairment. Existing views are primarily agricultural activity and undeveloped land, along with transportation corridors within the Project APE that include a network of rural roads and larger roadways such as Interstate 29/US Highway 81 that intersect the Project APE in a north-south direction, and US Highway 12 which crosses the northern Project APE boundary in an east-west direction. An important commercial rail corridor (non-commuter line), the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, also crosses the northern portion of the APE parallel to US Highway 12.

The majority of the Project APE is comprised of cropland or pasture and herbaceous rangeland. One area of moderate density residential development is the Town of Summit located in the northern portion of the APE. According to the 2010 census, the Town of Summit is a small town consisting of mainly residential and commercial properties with a population of 288 people within the 0.56 square mile municipal boundary. Overall population density within the APE is very low, averaging 2.5 people per square mile outside of the Town of Summit, and 3.7 people per square mile overall (including the Town of Summit).

Topography within the APE is not distinctive, as the Project sits on a plateau surrounded by lower flatlands in the distance. Although the APE is scattered with streams and lakes, no significant change in topography is attributable to these features. Additionally, none of the features within the APE are classified as scenic resources. Only a handful of wooded areas are present as small isolated pockets of vegetation. Although the Project area is relatively undeveloped, buildings such as silos and grain elevators can be seen in the typical landscape, along with the Town of Summit near the northern Project boundary. Additionally, there are no federal or state parks within the APE, nor does the APE contain any highly distinctive or important landscape features or unique viewsheds.

The APE is located on the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, historically and currently inhabited by the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, a branch of the Santee Dakota group of Native Americans. Western consulted with the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate THPO and the tribal governments listed in Section 3.3 below to determine the cultural resource study area.

A review of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate website and the Oyate Tourism website indicates there are no historically or culturally sensitive tribal visual resources within the APE. The Project proponent reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the South Dakota State Historical Preservation Society (SHPO) Cultural Resource Geographic Research Information Display websites for the presence of culturally sensitive resources. There are no historic places currently listed on the National Register within the APE. However, two buildings within the Town of Summit, the Summit Water Tower and First State Bank, were reviewed by the state SHPO and determined eligible for National Register listing.

The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on visual resources. However, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater impacts to visual resources.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

The Project proponent used geographical information system tools and visual impact simulations to conduct visual analyses (including mapping), which analyzed the visual characteristics of landscapes and visualized the potential impacts of project siting and design. The visual analyses have provided data that would be critical for identifying constraints and opportunities for siting projects to minimize visual impacts. The Project proponent has also sited wind turbines to minimize shadow flicker effects on nearby residences, as calculated using appropriate siting software and procedures.

The Project proponent has utilized site planning to locate turbines away from visually sensitive receptors and minimize site disturbance, including tree clearing and grading. Prior to finalization of the Project design, the Project proponent would explore, as practicable, opportunities for additional micro-siting or realignment of facilities that could reduce potential visual impacts.

During construction, the Project proponent would minimize the visual impacts associated with working construction equipment by adhering to a construction sequencing plan that minimizes impacts on local roads and residences. The Project proponent would develop and implement a dust control plan, which would minimize off-site visual impacts associated with construction activities. As described in the impacts discussion, any unavoidable construction-related visual impacts would be short term.

Following completion of construction, the Project proponent would perform site restoration activities. Restoration activities would include removal of excess road material from Project access roads, restoration of agricultural fields, and revegetating disturbed sites through seeding and mulching. These actions would assure that, to the greatest extent possible, the Project area is returned to its preconstruction condition and that long-term visual impacts are minimized.

9. Acoustics

The Grant County Zoning Ordinance requires that noise level originating from turbines shall not exceed 50 dBA at the perimeter of the principal and accessory structures of existing off-site residences, businesses, and buildings owned and/or maintained by a governmental entity. The Project proponent would also employ appropriate environmental noise criteria such as the guidelines provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

1. Existing Conditions

Background sound levels would vary both spatially and temporally depending on proximity to area sound sources, roadways and natural sounds. Principal contributors to the existing acoustic environment likely include motor vehicle traffic, mobile farming equipment, farming activities such as plowing and irrigation, all-terrain vehicles, local roadways, rail movements, periodic aircraft flyovers, and natural sounds.

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

Most construction activities would occur during the day, when noise is tolerated due to the masking effect of background noise. Nighttime noise levels would drop to the background levels of the Project area. In general, construction activities for wind energy development would disturb smaller areas than those at other industrial facilities, and would persist for a short period. However, the periods of noise at any given residence in the Project area would likely only occur during brief periods for a few days as turbine construction activities would move elsewhere within the overall Project area as turbine sites are completed. Therefore, the potential noise and vibration impacts of construction activities would be local and temporary in nature, and would not be substantially louder than everyday noise sources such as farm equipment and nearby traffic. The Project proponent would make all reasonable efforts to minimize the impact of noise resulting from construction activities.

During operation, the primary noise sources would be the wind turbines, the transformer and switchgear from the substation, as well as motorized travel within the Project area for O&M of the facility. The sources of sounds emitted from operating wind turbines can be divided into two categories: 1) mechanical sounds from the interaction of turbine components; and 2) aerodynamic sounds produced by the flow of air over the blades. Aerodynamic sound is typically the largest component of wind turbine acoustic emissions, and is generally characterized as a “swishing” or “whooshing” sound.

Maintenance activities involving periodic site visits to wind turbines, transmission lines, substations, and auxiliary structures would involve light- or medium-duty vehicle traffic with relatively low noise levels. The Project proponent anticipates infrequent but noisy activities, such as road maintenance work with heavy equipment or repair or replacement of old or inoperative wind turbines or auxiliary equipment. However, the anticipated level of noise impacts from maintenance activities would be far lower than that from construction activities. Overall, the noise levels of continuous site operation would be much lower than the noise levels associated with short-term construction activities.

The Project proponent retained Stantec to conduct a noise analysis for the proposed Project. Stantec performed the analysis to assess the potential sound levels that may be experienced at local residences (receptors) within the Project area. Stantec predicted the potential impact of noise on receptors within the Project area using a software program that considers the source sound power level from the wind turbines, along with the positions of the turbines and receptors within the area of impact. Stantec identified a total of 202 potential receptors and included them within the analysis. Stantec conservatively calculated the sound levels by using the maximum sound power level in a worst-case scenario. Results of the analysis indicate that the Project would cause minimal sound impact on receptors within the Project area. Stantec expects noise levels at all receptors within the Project area to comply with the Grant County Zoning regulation maximum noise level of 50 dBA at inhabited structures (Stantec, 2014).

The types and levels of decommissioning activities would be similar to (but shorter in duration) than those associated with construction. Thus, the noise levels would be similar to or less than those for construction activities. Similar to the construction period, most decommissioning activities would occur during the day, when people are more tolerant of noise due to the masking effect of background noise. Nighttime noise levels would drop to the background levels of a rural environment because decommissioning activities would cease at night. Like construction activities, relative to wind turbine operation, decommissioning activities would last for a short period of time and the potential noise impacts would be local and temporary in nature.

The No Action Alternative would have no direct noise impacts. However, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater impacts to temporary construction-related noise.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

The Project proponent and the contractors would implement best management practices for sound abatement during construction, including use of appropriate mufflers and limiting hours of construction. Stationary construction equipment (e.g., compressors or generators) would be located as far as practical from nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, the Project proponent would notify landowners in advance of construction sound impacts and provide them with a complaint resolution procedure to assure that any complaints regarding construction sound are adequately addressed.

The Project proponent has sited the proposed turbines in accordance with all applicable local ordinances. Although the Project proponent does not anticipate that any impacts related to operational noise would be significant, the Project proponent would employ measures to minimize and mitigate operational related noise. The Project proponent and contractors would maintain turbines as necessary to keep them in good condition throughout the duration of the Project.

10. Transportation

1. Existing Conditions

The former Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul & Pacific railroad runs parallel to Highway 12, which traverses from northwest to southeast. The railroad is currently operated by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.

Three airports were noted during a desktop analysis in the vicinity of the Project, including:

• 
  Milbank Municipal Airport, located approximately 22 nautical miles to the east of the Project footprint and operated by the City of Milbank.
  
• 
  Sisseton Municipal Airport, a publicly-owned airfield located approximately 30 nautical miles north of the Project area.
  
• 
  A small landing strip located in Grant County, just south of the county line on the eastern portion of the Project area. A review of FAA-listed airports did not identify this landing strip.
  

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

In general, the heavy equipment and materials needed for site access, site preparation, foundation construction, and construction of transmission lines are typical of construction projects and do not pose unique transportation considerations. Typically, flatbed combination trucks would move the equipment to the Project site and would remain on site through the duration of construction activities.

Transportation logistics have become a major consideration for wind energy development projects; the trend is toward larger rotors and taller turbine towers and the associated equipment needed to erect them. Depending on the design, some of the turbine components may be extremely long (e.g., blades) or heavy (e.g., the nacelle). The size and weight of these components would dictate the specifications for site access roads for required rights of way, turning radii, and fortified culverts or bridges. The Project proponent estimates that each wind turbine generator would require between 5 and 15 truck shipments of components, some of which could involve specialized trucks unique to the wind energy industry that are oversized or overweight. Congestion on local roadways should not be extremely worsened by construction traffic as existing traffic volumes are so low.

Once the Project is commissioned and operational, Project staff traffic would likely be concentrated around the O&M facility. Some of these personnel would need to visit certain turbine locations and return to this facility. Each turbine typically requires routine maintenance visits once every three months, but certain turbines or other Project improvements could require periods of more frequent service visits. Such service visits typically involve one to two pick-up trucks. The Project proponent does not expect operation of the Project to result in any traffic issues in the Project area because there would be only a minor increase in traffic.

With some exceptions, transportation activities during site decommissioning would be similar to those during site development and construction. Heavy equipment and cranes would be required for dismantling turbines and towers, breaking up tower foundations, and regrading and recontouring the site to the original grade. With the possible exception of a main crane, the Project proponent does not expect any oversized and/or overweight shipments during decommissioning activities because the major turbine components can be disassembled, segmented, or size-reduced prior to shipment.

The Project proponent does not contemplate any impacts to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad railway by current Project plans.

The FAA has determined that no impacts to the aviation system or the three airports listed above would occur as a result of the Project. The FAA has issued a determination of no effect/hazard for each of the proposed turbine locations. Turbines would be lit according to FAA requirements to ensure aviation safety.

There would be no direct negative impacts on the transportation system associated with the No Action Alternative. However, if the Project is not built, any associated public road safety improvements that could be required for the delivery of Project requirements would not be made. In addition, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater temporary construction impacts to transportation.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and the South Dakota Department of Transportation have unique rules, regulations, and oversized permit requirements. This system requires transporters to evaluate the type of shipment being planned, its origin, and destination. Demonstrating to permit officials that all possible means have been assessed or used to either minimize travel distances or select appropriate bypass routes is critical in obtaining permits. Typically, the transport company develops detailed transportation plans based on specific object sizes, weights, origin, destination, and unique handling requirements. The final transportation plan is developed after alternative approaches have been evaluated, costs refined, and adjustments made to comply with unique permit requirements.

Overweight permits are usually issued with specific dates during which transport is prohibited. These dates are state-specific but tend to eliminate periods during the spring when frozen ground is thawing. Over-dimension permits are likely to have travel time limits in congested areas, limiting movement to non-rush-hour periods. The construction company hired to build the proposed Project would obtain any necessary permits for transporting equipment.

11. Public Safety and Communications

1. Existing Conditions

The Project proponent would meet with the Summit Volunteer Fire Department to discuss potential fire and safety hazards associated with the Project.

A 406 foot cell tower is located in the town of Summit at 45655 140^th St. There is also a 190 foot communication tower in Watertown, a city located approximately 30 miles south of the proposed Project area.

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

The Project proponent had a microwave study conducted by Comsearch. This study focused on the potential impact of wind turbines on licensed, proposed and applied non-federal government microwave systems. This type of study determines the Worst Case Fresnel Zone (WCFZ) boundaries for each path. The WCFZ is a swath along the microwave path where wind turbines could obstruct the path. The study identified six microwave paths intersecting the Project area. Comsearch calculated and mapped the Fresnel Zones for these microwave paths to assess the potential impact from the turbines. Comsearch considered a total of 46 turbines in the analysis (although only 41 are currently proposed), each with a rotor diameter of 354 feet and turbine hub height of 262.5 feet. Of those turbines, Comsearch found that none would potentially obstruct the microwave systems in the area.

The No Action Alternative would have no direct public safety or communication system impacts. However, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater temporary construction related impacts to public safety and communication systems.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

The following conservation measures to protect wind energy facility and transmission line workers are applicable during all phases associated with the Project.

• 
  Work at the Project would be in compliance with applicable federal and state occupational safety and health standards (e.g., the Occupational Health and Safety Administrations [OSHA’s] Occupational Health and Safety Standards, CFR Parts 1910 and 1926, respectively).
  
• 
  The Project proponent would conduct a safety assessment to describe potential safety issues during construction and operation and create a plan to mitigate them.
  
• 
  The Project proponent would develop a health and safety program to protect workers during site characterization, construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind energy project, as described in the final PEIS.
  
• 
  Design for all electrical systems on the Project would meet all applicable safety standards (e.g., the National Electrical Safety Code) and comply with the interconnection requirements of the transmission system operator.
  
• 
  In the event of an accidental release of hazardous substances to the environment, the Project proponent would document the event, including a root cause analysis, a description of appropriate corrective actions taken, and a characterization of the resulting environmental or health and safety impacts. Documentation of the event would be provided to permitting agencies and other appropriate federal and state agencies within 30 days, as required.
  

• 
  The Project proponent has complied with the setback requirements in the Grant County Ordinance in designing the Project layout.
  
• 
  The Project proponent would develop a traffic management plan for the site access roads to control hazards that could result from increased truck traffic (most likely during construction or decommissioning), ensuring that traffic flow would not be adversely affected and that specific issues of concern (e.g., the locations of school bus routes and stops) are identified and addressed.
  
• 
  The Project proponent would use proper signage and/or engineered barriers (e.g., fencing) to limit access to electrically energized equipment and conductors in order to prevent access to electrical hazards by unauthorized individuals or wildlife.
  
• 
  The Project proponent has designed the Project to comply with FAA regulations, including lighting requirements, and to avoid potential safety issues associated with proximity to airports, military bases or training areas, or landing strips and has received confirmation from the FAA that the wind farm would not impact aviation safety.
  
• 
  The Project proponent would work with the local fire and emergency services to develop a fire management and protection plan.
  
• 
  The Project proponent would work with appropriate agencies (e.g., DOE and TSA) to address critical infrastructure and key resource vulnerabilities at wind energy facilities, and to minimize and plan for potential risks from natural events, sabotage, and terrorism.
  

12. Cultural Resources

1. Existing Conditions

The majority of the Project area is located on land that was formerly part of the Sisseton-Whapeton Indian Reservation. All of the land has been deeded to local farmers, but additional research is required to ascertain the presence or absence of native artifacts, burial grounds, sites of ancient habitation and other pertinent resources.

Metcalf Archeological Consultants, Inc. (MAC) conducted a Class I file search of the site and manuscript files at the SHPO office. The search area included the APE and the surrounding one-mile radius. The APE is any area where temporary or permanent impacts may occur during construction of the Project. The search identified 47 cultural resources that were recorded in the APE, consisting of 40 architectural structures and cemeteries, six historic sites, and one prehistoric site. One historic site, the historic Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad was determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The APE includes a portion of the Town of Summit. Two additional architectural structures located in the Town of Summit are located outside of the APE. During the files search, MAC identified two sites, one structure and one unrecorded cemetery, that were not evaluated for inclusion in the National Register; these sites should be avoided during Project construction (MAC, 2014a).

MAC conducted a Level III cultural resource inventory from August 20, 2014 to August 25, 2014. As a result of the survey, MAC recommended to Western a finding of No Historic Properties Affected, provided that the two unevaluated sites are avoided (MAC, 2014b).

MAC also conducted an Architectural Inventory of the Project area. The architectural inventory of the proposed Summit Wind Farm project area returned two recommendations of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. However, both sites recommended for eligibility will be avoided by construction activities and MAC returned a recommendation of No Historic Properties Affected (MAC, 2015).

2. Potential Impacts of the Alternatives

The creation of access roads also provides people with easier access to previously remote areas. Since one of the greatest threats to archaeological sites is from looting, increased access often leads to greater opportunities for looting to take place. However, since the Project would be located on private lands, the Project proponent anticipates that access levels by the general public would not change following development and therefore the overall effect of increased access on archeological sites within the Project area would be minimal. Although archaeological material is protected on public or state lands, archaeological sites and associated artifacts on private land are the property of the landowner.

The Project proponent would site project elements to avoid and minimize potential impacts to cultural resources, including any identified by Native Americans that have ancestral ties to the Project area, and would conduct cultural resource surveys in the Project area to identify areas requiring protection. The Project proponent would consider all identified cultural resources prior to finalizing the locations of Project infrastructure and beginning construction activities. As the construction of the access roads and wind turbines would not require demolition or other adverse impacts to historic and architectural resources, there would be no construction related impact on architectural resources.

Once the Project proponent constructs the proposed Project, no substantial earth-disturbing activities associated with operation and maintenance of the Project would occur. Therefore, Project operation would not have an adverse effect on archeological resources. Although minor impacts associated with operation could come from the looting of sites or by erosion of disturbed areas, these impacts would be localized and temporary in nature and would not have a significant effect on archeological resources.

It is likely that the proposed wind turbines would be visible from at least some of the 47 cultural resource sites identified in the MAC report. Studies conducted thus far have included an assessment of potential visual impacts on cultural and Native American resources. The Project’s potential effect on a given historic property would be limited to a change in the visual setting of the property, if turbines are visible when the historic property is viewed from a publicly accessible vantage point and the visual setting is a defining characteristic of the property’s historical significance. The potential effect resulting from the introduction of wind turbines into the visual setting for any significant property is dependent on a number of factors including the number of visible turbines, distance, visual dominance, orientation of views, viewer context and activity, and the types and density of modern features in the existing view (such as silos, buildings, overhead electrical transmission lines, cellular towers, highways, development, etc.). Visual setting may or may not be an important factor contributing to a given property’s historical significance. If the visual setting is not an important factor, then the Project would have no impact on the historic property. MAC does not identify scenic views and association with the landscape as contributing to the significance of any of the historic resources in the APE; therefore, the Project will not have a significant visual impact to cultural resources in the APE.

It is important to note that viewshed analyses conducted by MAC do not consider screening provided by buildings and trees, as well as characteristics of the proposed turbines that influence visibility (color, narrow profile, distance from viewer, etc.). Therefore, actual Project visibility would differ from the viewshed analyses. Visual screening provided by existing buildings, yard trees, silos, and other objects would likely limit views of the Project from some areas where viewshed mapping suggests the Project is potentially visible, especially within the Town of Summit.

The Project proponent expects very few impacts on cultural resources from decommissioning. Again, the majority of impacts would be associated with new ground disturbance during construction. Ground disturbance during decommissioning would be confined primarily to areas that were originally disturbed during construction. If new work areas were needed in areas that had not previously been disturbed, there would be a potential for impacts on additional cultural resources. Removal of structures would be necessary, but the Project proponent does not expect previously undisturbed areas to be affected.

The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on cultural resources. However, selection of the No Action Alternative could potentially cause the Project proponent to reconsider an alternative interconnection, which could result in greater impacts to cultural resources due to increased temporary ground disturbance associated with transmission line construction.

3. Proposed Conservation Measures

Consultation pursuant to the Section 106 of the NHPA established whether the Project is likely to disturb traditional cultural properties, affect access rights to particular locations, disrupt traditional cultural practices, or visually impact areas important to the tribe(s). Western consulted with SHPO, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate THPO and the tribal governments listed in Section 3.3 below about the cultural resource study area and to identify cultural resources within the study area. The following cultural resource study parameters were agreed upon by Western and SHPO; additionally, all remaining project disturbances not included in the agreement were also surveyed for completeness.

1. 
   All project disturbances east of Interstate 29 would be surveyed.
   
2. 
   All project areas west of Interstate 29 that have not been disturbed by agriculture (grasslands, pasture, etc.) would be surveyed.
   
3. 
   All project disturbances in the north half of Section 5, the north half of Section 8, and the NE ¼ of Section 29 would be surveyed.
   
4. 
   Once the Level 1 search has been completed, aerial photographs or high resolution satellite images should be utilized to search for historic farmstead features within the entire APE west of Interstate 29. Identified site Locations west of Interstate 29 that do not fall under points 2 and 3 above would be investigated.
   

The Project proponent and Western would implement the following mitigation measures to address potential impacts on cultural resources:

• 
  The presence of archaeological sites and historic properties in the APE would be determined based on a records search of recorded sites and properties in the area and an archaeological survey.
  

• 
  Archaeological sites and historic properties present in locations that would be affected by Project activities would be reviewed to determine whether they meet the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register. Cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are considered “significant” resources and termed “historic properties”. The Project proponent would avoid these resources with siting of Project components.
  

• 
  Cultural and Native American resources discovered during construction would immediately be brought to the attention of Western. Work would immediately halt in the vicinity of the find to avoid further disturbance to the resources while being evaluated and appropriate mitigation plans are being developed, if required. An Unanticipated Discovery Plan would be prepared.
  

• 
  If human remains are found, work would cease immediately in the vicinity of the find. The appropriate law enforcement officials and Western would then be contacted. No material would be handled or removed from the find location. Once it is determined that the remains are archaeological, the South Dakota SHPO would be contacted to determine how the remains should be addressed. An Unanticipated Discovery Plan would be prepared.
  

• 
  Significant cultural and Native American resources can be affected by soil erosion. The Project would employ all appropriate and necessary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent damage to cultural and Native American resources.
  

13. Cumulative Impacts

This analysis presents the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project, taking into account existing and potential future wind development in the region as well as possible construction actions taking place in the Project vicinity that may occur at the same time as construction of the Project. The goal of the cumulative impacts analysis is to identify potentially significant impacts early in the planning process to improve decisions and move toward more sustainable development.

There are no existing wind energy facilities in Grant County. There are 8 operating wind farms within a 100 mile radius of the Project.

Table 2.13-1: Existing wind farms within a 100 mile radius of the Project

Project Name	Approx. Distance from Project (miles)	Location	Project Capacity (MW)
Day County Wind Farm	40	South Dakota	99
Buffalo Ridge Wind Farm I and II	60	South Dakota and Minnesota	300
MinnDakota Wind Farm	80	South Dakota and Minnesota	150
Lakota Ridge Wind Farm	90	Minnesota	11
Shaokatan Hills Wind Farm	90	Minnesota	12
Lake Benton 1 Wind Farm	95	Minnesota	107
Marshall Wind Farm	100	Minnesota	18.7

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Wind Development in the Region

There is only one known proposed wind farm within a 100 mile radius of the Project, the Northern Wind LLC wind farm located in Wilmot, South Dakota. This Project is approximately 20 miles from the proposed Project.

Major construction projects in the vicinity of the Project being constructed at the same time may potentially affect the same resources (such as transportation routes) at approximately the same time as the Project.

The Project proponent contacted both Grant County and adjacent Roberts County to determine whether any major construction projects coincident with the Project area or general vicinity were planned for 2015, the intended year of construction for the proposed Project. There was only one project mentioned, a transmission project currently under development in Grant County called Big Stone South to Ellendale. The proposed transmission line is located a few miles south of the Project area and construction of that transmission line may occur sometime between 2016 and 2019. It is unlikely that the proposed transmission line would be in construction at the same time as the Project.

Cumulative Impacts Summary

The Project proponent expects the proposed Project to have a positive impact on socioeconomics and air quality in the Project area and no significant impacts to any other area of the affected environment. This is in part due to the careful planning and deliberate siting process employed for the Project, but it is also due to the adoption of the conservation measures recommended in the final UGP Wind Energy PEIS.

3. AGENCIES CONTACTED/CONSULTED

1. Federal Agencies

• 
  US Army Corps of Engineers;
  
• 
  US Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency and Rural Utilities Service);
  
• 
  US Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
  
• 
  US Department of Homeland Security Federal Energy Management Agency;
  
• 
  US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration;
  
• 
  US Department of Transportation Highway Administration;
  
• 
  US Environmental Protection Agency;
  
• 
  US Fish and Wildlife Service (Ecological Services and Refuges); and
  
• 
  US Geological Survey.
  

2. State and Local Agencies

• 
  South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
  
• 
  South Dakota Department of Transportation;
  
• 
  South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks;
  
• 
  South Dakota Historic Preservation Office;
  
• 
  Grant County; and
  
• 
  Town of Summit.
  

3. Native American Tribes and Associated Bodies

• 
  Upper Sioux Indian Community;
  
• 
  Prairie Island Indian Community;
  
• 
  Lower Sioux Indian Community;
  
• 
  Spirit Lake Tribal Council;
  
• 
  Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate;
  
• 
  Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive Committee;
  
• 
  Yankton Sioux Tribe;
  
• 
  Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska;
  
• 
  Rosebud Sioux Tribe of Indians;
  
• 
  Crow Creek Sioux Tribe;
  
• 
  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;
  
• 
  Lower Brule Tribe;
  
• 
  Standing Rock Sioux Tribe;
  
• 
  Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes;
  
• 
  Sac and Fox Nation (Oklahoma);
  
• 
  Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri;
  
• 
  Sac and Fox Nation of the Mississippi; and
  
• 
  Oglala Sioux Tribe.
  

• 
  Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate;
  
• 
  Prairie Island Indian Community; and
  
• 
  Fort Peck Tribes.
  

4. REFERENCES

Available online at:

http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. Using State and County Quick Facts. 14 April, 2014. Available online at:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.html

Derby. 2014. Personal communication between Clayton Derby (WEST) and Brian Schwabenbauer (Haley & Aldrich) on April 14, 2014.

US Department of Energy (DOE). 2011. Wind Energy Benefits. April 2011. Available online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/49053.pdf

DOE. 2014. South Dakota State Energy Profile. Available online at: http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=SD

DOE. 2011. Saving Farmland One Wind Energy Project at a Time. Available online at: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=3368

DOE Western Area Power Administration (Western) and U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2015. Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. April 2015. Volumes 1 and 2

http://www.plainswindeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/Final_UGP_Wind_Energy_PEIS_Vol_1.pdf

http://www.plainswindeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/Final_UGP_Wind_Energy_PEIS_Vol_2.pdf

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley) 2013.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2013/08/27/no-evidence-of-residential-property-value-impacts-near-u-s-wind-turbines-a-new-berkeley-lab-study-finds/

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2014. Preliminary Desktop Geological and Geotechnical Study. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. 31 March 2014.

HDR Engineering, Inc (HDR) 2014 Surveys for Prairie Butterflies (Hesperia

Department of Labor (DOL) 2014. Bureau of Area Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map. 14 April 2014. Available online at: http://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet?survey=la&map=state&seasonal=u

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2012. Census of Agriculture Preliminary Report: U.S. and State Data. February 2014. Available online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Preliminary_Report/Full_Report.pdf

USDA NASS. 2008. South Dakota’s Cropland Data Layer 2010. Available online at:

http://nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/South_Dakota/Publications/Cropland_Data_Layer/2010/index.asp

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2014. South Dakota 80-Meter Wind Map and Wind Resource Potential. Available online at: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=sd

Regeneris Consulting Ltd. (Regeneris), 2012. Study into the Potential Economic Impact of Wind Farms and Associated Grid Infrastructure on the Welsh Tourism Sector. Available online at: http://www.renewableuk-cymru.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/140404economic-impacts-of-wind-farms-on-tourism-en.pdf

South Dakota Department of Revenue. 2012. Property Tax Populations, Equalizing valuations 2012. Available online at:

http://dor.sd.gov/Taxes/Property_Taxes/Publications/PDFs/CERTIF2012.pdf

South Dakota State University (SDSU). 2014. South Dakota Climate and Weather. Available online at: http://climate.sdstate.edu/climate_site/climate.htm

Stantec. 2014. SummitWind Farm Sound Study. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. March 25, 2014.

Stantec. 2014. SummitWind Farm Shadow Flicker Study. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. April 14, 2014.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. Published March 23, 2012. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/weg_final.pdf

USFWS. 2013a. Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). USFWS Endangered Species Program: Midwest Region. Updated October 2, 2013. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/

USFWS. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Dakota Skipper and Endangered Species Status for Poweshiek Skipperling. USFWS Endangered Species Program: Midwest Region. Federal Register/ Vol. 79, No. 206/ Friday, October 24, 2014. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/dask/pdf/FRButterflyFinalListing24Oct2014.pdf

USFWS. 2015a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat with 4(d) Rule; Final Rule and Interim Rule. Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 63/ April 2, 2015. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/FRnlebFinalListing02April2015.pdf

USFWS. 2015b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Final Rules for the Gray Wolf in Wyoming and the Western Great Lakes in Compliance with Court Orders; Final Rule. Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 34/ February 20, 2015. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-20/pdf/2015-03503.pdf

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2014a. Site Characterization Study of the SummitWind Resource Area, Grant and Roberts Counties, South Dakota. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. March 5, 2014.

WEST. 2014b. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the SummitWind Resource Area, Grant and Roberts Counties, South Dakota. Fixed-Point Bird Use Interim Report: September - December 2013. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. Bismarck, North Dakota. March 10, 2014.

WEST, 2014c. Avian Use Surveys for the SummitWind Farm Grant County, South Dakota. Final Report September 2013 – August 2014. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. December 3, 2014.

WEST, 2014d. SummitWind Farm Wetland and Waterbody Survey Report. Prepared for SummitWind, LLC. July 21, 2014.

WEST, 2014e. 2014 Breeding Bird Survey for the SummitWind Resource Area Grant County, South Dakota. Final Report June – July 2014. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. October 20, 2014.

WEST, 2014f. SummitWind Bald Eagle Monitoring Observations. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. December 8, 2014.

WEST, 2015. Bat Acoustic Survey Report Summit Wind Farm Grant and Roberts Counties, South Dakota. Prepared for SummitWind, LLC. March 23, 2015.

WEST, 2015a. SummitWind Project area Northern Long-eared Bat Acoustic Survey. Prepared for SummitWind Farm, LLC. February 2, 2015.

WAPA and USFWS, 2015. SummitWind Farm Biological Assessment. May 2015.

5. LIST OF PREPARERS

6. LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.2-2: Proposed Acreage per Type of Disturbance on USFWS-managed Easements

Table 1.3.2-1: Disturbance Assumptions

Table 1.6-1: SummitWind Farm Regulatory Authorizations

Table 2.4.2-1: Proposed Temporary Disturbance Impacts on Vegetation Communities

2.4.2-2: Proposed Permanent Disturbance Impacts on Vegetation Communities

Table 2.7.1-1: Unemployment Rates for 2011 and 2012

Table 2.7.1-2: Personal Income

Table 2.7.1-3: Tax Valuations 2012

Table 2.7.1-4: Population

Table 2.7.1.2-1: Minority Populations

Table 2.7.1.2-2: Poverty Levels

Table 2.11.1-1: Local Fire, Police, and Medical Services

Table 2.13-1: Existing Wind Farms within a 100 mile radius of the Project

7. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2-1: Proposed Project Layout

Figure 2.6.1-1: Grant County Land Cover 2010

8. LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX B-AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC COMMENTS